So Senator Leahy is now the enemy?

[cali]

He voted for Rice. Forget that as ranking minority member of the Judiciary committee he just shepherded through a unanimous vote against Gonzales. Forget his vote against the IWR, and his long history as one of the most outspoken and liberal dems in the Senate. Forget his work against landmines, and rightwing judges.

This excoriation of Senators who have stood up for liberal principles for years because of one vote is a little frightening. I don't know enough about the other dems who voted for Rice, but I do know that if we're willing to demonize Leahy, we're well and truly screwing ourselves.

[NoPasaran]

1. Everybody takes a turn in the Five Minute Hate

Yesterday Feinstein
Tomorrow Obama

[Pirate Smile]

2. No, Obama is today also.

:eyes:

[Casandra]

3. Obama

Speaking of Obama So far, its 2 for 2. Both yes votes. First one on the Foreign Affairs committee, voting for Rice. This morning, he did it again! And THIS is the guy who offers us all the hope for change?!

[saracat]

5. Amen!

[Walt Starr]

9. Gonzales will be a third pitch, will Obama strike out

or get a base hit?

It'll be interesting to see.

Voting Aye was one thing, and a bad thing, but at least he didn't PRESENT the lying piece of crap to the Senate as Feinstein did.

[cali]

10. Why not give him the benefit of the doubt until

he's been there for a year or so? Besides, I'll bet he votes against Gonzales. Will that redeem him at all, in your eyes?

[Walt Starr]

14. Can't afford the benefit of the doubt on a single Dem

Hold their feet to the fire.

[iwantmycountryback]

24. HAHA! Actually looking at his real record and then evaluating him??

What are you nuts!!?? It's much easier to judge him as someone who will be useless after 1 vote as a Senator and having been a senator for about 2 weeks. No need to let him compile a record for us to judge, we know already that he sucks.:crazy:

[ComerPerro]

15. Maybe you forgot his speech at the DNC

about "coming together".

Plus, the guy hasn't even been in the Senate for a month yet. He has only had 2 votes. Give him a break.

I guarantee you that Peter Fitzgerald, Jack Ryan and Alan Keyes all would have voted yes.

And, they also would have voted for every piece of anti-American, corporate bullshit that the Republicans put forward.

Obama will not.

Cut him some slack.

Presidents get the cabinets they want.

He's not superman.

[d_b]

23. "We got some gay friends in the red states"

"And we coach little-league in the blue states"

"... and we approve torturing thugs in the blue states"..
Lets hope not.

[saracat]

7. Feinstien has been in bed with the enemy for a looong time.

And it is because of her voting record. She is not a Dem. And Obama is fast proving himself a moderate GOP ass kisser. Sorry. He also thinks there weren't many voting irregularities.

[tom_paine]

4. No, Pat Leahy isn't the enemy

He is just another 1930s German Social Democrat who got mailed some anthrax by Der Fuhrer's Men.

And I am not referring to this one vote.

Not at all.

[cali]

8. Then what are you referring to? n/t

[CWebster]

6. I agree, I think we should let them slide every time

they let them slide.

[DancingBear]

11. It is NOT a question of is he/she the "enemy"

It is a question of having them act like Democrats, and having them stand and scream "NO" to a woman who just today was responsible for 36 more American kids being sent home in metal boxes.

For a goddamn lie.

Can't we hold ANYONE'S feet to the fire without being labelled in "with us or against us" terms?

Notice how many Repubs voted against her today?

(Apologies in advance for ranting)

[cali]

16. I don't have any problem with your ranting

I just strongly disagree that you haven't set up a us v. them dichotomy. You did that in your thread. And to me Gonzales is a far more vital vote than Rice. What happens if one of your "heroic" thirteen votes for Gonzales? Are they then all complicit with torture?

[Zhade]

20. Yes. They would then be endorsing and condoning torture.

They wouldn't be doing "political ju-jitsu", or "a rope-a-dope" - they'd be indicating with their vote that torture is A-Okay.

[DancingBear]

26. I think we disagree on the following point

The point being what constitutes a "vital" appointment. With Rice, we have an individual who is seen by most of the Muslim world as the architect for Iraq. She is the face behind the invasion, of this there is no question. By putting her in the VERY visible position of Secretary Of State we are now telling the majority of the world that not only what we did in Iraq was "just", but we're going to send one of it's architects into your very backyard as SOS. Now, if this is not the ultimate "there's a new sheriff in town" bad-ass Bush persona I don't know what is.This is a prescription for disaster and terror attacks which will make 9/11 look like recess.

The Dem Senators should know this, and act accordingly. We saw the Repubs vote in lockstep for her confirmation, yet 32 of our people looked at Iraq and said "yep, she's our gal." I'm sorry, but I can't fathom that - I just can't.

With regard to Gonzales, I must turn and ask a question of you - if they vote FOR him, how do they explain themselves, knowing what they and we do? How would you explain it, knowing what you do? What do we say then -"we're saving our powder for bigger battles?" Should we all jump up and down when we keep a Supreme Court Justice off the bench, while in the meantime Bush stacks the lower courts with justices who will set policy so as to have cases never reach it? This is what I mean when I say that Bush is building the beast - we must stop him at every turn, at every battle. We can not afford for our people to to make judgments predicated on what they see as "important" -usually viewed through the false prism of electabiltiy.

Let me also say that I admire Leahy tremendously - I'll be returning to NH as his neighbor very soon. However, I think it is both right and just to make him aware of what the people in the Democratic party think of his vote. I think he would want to know, for I find him to be a rarity in this political age - an honest man, who this time has made a grievous error in judgment.

BTW, I never referred to any of the Senators as "heroic", but another poster did. While Ii agree with the assessment, I don't want to take credit for things I didn't say.

Damn, I was ranting again, wasn't I... :)

[IronLionZion]

12. It's like masturbation

it feels good at first but in the end you're just screwing yourself :P

[molly]

Used to be, I couldn't wait to sign on to DU

I've given up - too many whinners and immature thinkers. Does anyone know a site where ADULTS post?

[KittyWampus]

25. Same Here. I Honestly Think There're Only A Few Real Whiners-

the rest are disruptors who imitate the whiners and immature ones cause it's so easy to get away with.

[molly]

27. Yes, but many of the good and logical and mature posters

have left DU only to be replaced by people that have no thought process. What I want to know is where did the oldies and goodies go?

[Nothing Without Hope]

13. He does need to hear, without shrillness, what we think of his vote

It needs to be explained - all the excellent reasons why he should have voted against Rice. Silence is assent. On the other hand, sending him hate mail is a loss in every way. We want him to LISTEN TO US, after all.

[Wind Dancer]

17. I look at it in a different light.

Why would I support any politician who refuses to acknowledge the truth?

She is not qualified for the position.

Rice has been a failure, too many people are dead and dying.

[coreystone]

18. As ranking member of the senate Judiciary Committee...

Leahy will be having his hands full for the next several years with the expected Supreme Court and other lower level Federal Court nominees of this administration. I am disappointed by Senator Leahy's vote on the Rice confirmation vote today, but, his role on the Judiciary Committee may prove to be more effective, if he is not ALWAYS "obfuscating" the wishes of Bush. I really don't know what the strategy is of the Democrats. If there is a consensual unification of ideas in the opposition of the lies and mis-administration of the Bush regime at all, I certainly am not privy to it, but, there MAY be things going on that would not be wise to broadcast. I am not terribly optimistic, but, I am not going to spin my wheels from "day to day" trying to read into the plans of what may or may not be.

Do remember that Gonzales passed by a straight party vote of 10 to 8!

:-)

[saltpoint]

19. Of some interest would be the notion that a more --

-- left-leaning public servant than Leahy would have resolutely condemned Dr. Rice's lying. A Robert Kennedy, Jr., for example.

As for Patrick Leahy particularly, I would rather have had the man's vote against CondiLiar, but that vote is done, and I'm already starting the letters urging U.S. Senators to vote against Gonzales.

I don't expect senators to vote my way all the time.

Anybody who threatens Dick Cheney enough for the Veep to spout vulgar slang on the floor of the U.S. Senate is fine with me.

[John_H]

21. Let's face the facts.

A longtime DUer took some heat a while back for pointing out a fact: that many of these specific-dems-are-assholes-who-deserve-to-be-defeated threads are started and populated by some of the seame people, people who have mostly popped in since the election. Not all of them--but a enough to make anyone with all their teeth think a little bit.

Name one sensible Dem you know in real life who is willing to throw out a Patrick Leahy, especially because of ONE vote. Now ask yourself who would benefit if Leahy, Obama, and Feingold were defeated? Who would benefit from dems like leahy, feingold, and obama being defeated, from a veto-proof majority in the senate? I humbly suggest folks do what most DUers do when they encounter those types of thread: read them, chuckle at the idiot freepers starting them, and go about your merry way working to destroy the GOP.

[DrGonzoLives]

22. ALL who voted for Rice are WORSE THAN BUSH

DESTROY! DESTROY! DESTROY!

:nuke: :nuke: :nuke: :nuke: :nuke: :nuke: :nuke: :nuke: :nuke: :nuke: :nuke: :nuke: :nuke: :nuke: :nuke: :nuke: :nuke: :nuke: :nuke: :nuke: :nuke: :nuke: :nuke: :nuke: :nuke: :nuke: :nuke: :nuke: :nuke: :nuke: :nuke: :nuke: